IN THE MATTER OF: RUSTOM CAWASJEE COOPER versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 05-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

5 1 2 
IN THE MA TIER OF: 
RUSTOM CAW ASJEE COOPER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
May 5, 1970 
[M. HIDAYATU.!..LAH, CJ .. J. c SHAH, K. s. HEGDE, AN. G1wvrn 
A N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Co11te111pt of Co11rt-Criricis111 of Court Judgn1ent-Lin1itaiiou 011. 
At a puhlic meeting held a few days after the decision of this (~ourt 
on the constitution"\l validity of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of 
Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969, K, a Minister in the Central 
Government, wa"S reported by newspapers to have made certain critical 
remarks which, two petitioners be'fore the Court contended constituted a 
serious contempt of this Court. 
The petitioners swore an affidavit in 
suppon of their, petition based on the newspapers reports. 
As the Court 
considered that some of the alleged observations, priina facil', exceeded 
the bounds of legitimate criticism, a notice to show cause \Vas issued to 
K. 
Jn reply K filed an affidavit denying the main allegations and con-
tending that he has been misreported. 
Jn support of his O'vvn affidavit. 
three other affidavits \\'ere filed by persons present at the public meeting. 
Although an application was niade for summoning the reporters present 
at the public meeting, the Court did not consider it necessary to prolong: 
the hearing of the case as on the material be'fore the Court there was 
nothing to contradict the affidavi1s 
\\'hich denied 
the accuracy of 
the 
newspaper reports. 
However. while closing the case, the Court observed : 
While fair and temperate criticism ~f this Court or any other court 
even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives. or tend· 
Ing to bring judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing 
directly or indirectly the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of 
'"'hich notice inust and will be taken. -Respect is expected not only from 
those to whom the judgment o'f the Court is acceptable 
but also from 
those to whom it is repugnant. 
Those 'vvho 
err in their criticism by in· 
dulging in vilification of the institution of Courts administration of ju~ticc 
1:1nd the instruments through 
\~•hich the administration acts. should take 
heed *'or they wiil act at their own ,r.eril. [516 B] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Wr:l Petition No. 300 of 1969. 
M. C. Chag/a. N. A. Palkhivala, B. Datta, J. B. Dad(,chanji, 
O C Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the applicants. 
H. R. Gokhale and S. B. Wad, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. 
This petition is an off-shoot of the deci-
sion of this Court on the constitutional validity of the Banking 
Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, being 
Act 22 of 1969. By a majority of ten Judges against one, this 
A 
6 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
IN THE MATTER OF COOPER v. UNION (Hida;yatul/ah, CJ.) 51 J 
A 
Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional. 
The decision of 
B 
the Court was given on February 10, 1970. 
· 
On February 13, 1970 a meering was organised by the Blitz 
National Forum at Vithalbhai !>"ate! House at Delhi. It was pre-
>ided over by Mr. Mohan Kum_armanglam, an advocate of this 
Court. 
According to the news items published the next day in 
the Hindustan Times, the Times of India and the Patriot, a num-
ber of persons spoke about the Act and the decision of this Court 
upon it. Among the speakers were Mr. R. ,!(. Khadilkar, Minister 
in the Ministry of Finance, Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Mr. Kumarman· 
glam, Mr. Prabhatkar, Mr. S. M. Joshi, M.P., Mr. Bhupesh Gupta 
c 
M.P. and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon M.P. These speakers criti· 
cised the decision. 
Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, the Hindustan -Times 
reported, said that such decisions 'do not enhance the prestige of 
the Judiciary', that such acts on the part of the highest Court 'will 
only encourage Naxalites who have rejected constitutional means 
to bring about socialism' and that the judgment would be treated 
D 
with 'more and more contempt by ordinary people'. He observed 
that the situation would be rectified by Parliament because ten 
Judges 'sitting in an ivory towe.:' could not sit over the verdict of 
Parliament which represented the people. 
The Times of India 
report said that Mr. Khadilkar said that 'Government would soon 
bring forward an amending measure to offset the dangerous im-
plications for social progress of the community of the Supreme 
E_ 
Court judgment in the Bank Nationalisation case', that if necessary 
the issue whether Parliament or the Supreme Court w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.